"Gay Marriage" and the politics of Canberra

Being a lawyer, I spend a lot of time arguing with people, or trying to negotiate an agreement between people who are arguing. So in my downtime, I tend to try and avoid dinner party debates about politics. But living in Canberra, sometimes politics is impossible to ignore. It is especially difficult when a political issue comes up that is related to my speciality of family law, or raises issues close to my heart. The "gathering" today at Parliament House did both.

According to media reports, there was a gathering of about 200 people at Parliament House in Canberra protesting against "Gay Marriage" (or as some people call it: Marriage). 

According to ninemsn reports: 

Addressing the National Marriage Day rally outside Parliament House in Canberra on Tuesday, a Pastor said homosexual relationships only led to destructive and self-centred acts. "I'm convinced that homosexuals (re)produces themselves by molesting children," he told the 200-strong crowd.

To say I was shocked to read this was an understatement. Do people really believe this??

The outdoor gathering was then followed by an event of about 500 people inside Parliament House's Great Hall. According to the SameSame and the Australian:

The event’s special keynote speaker from Washington DC, said if you allowed gay marriage, “anything’’ such as polygamy and marriage between paedophiles and children 'could be called marriage,” she asserted. It got worse. She said there was “no greater evil” than the forces who proposed to legalise gay marriage and that they were in a “war for the future of the human race.”

But it wasn't just the guest speakers who were supporting the anti-marriage movement, our members of parliament were also in attendance lending their support. And that is the most disappointing fact of all. People who are supposed to be the leaders of our nation, are supporting a group that is motivated by prejudice and fear.

It shocks and saddens me that in 2012, people out there in Australia (including our members of parliament) still have such homophobic views that they insist on imposing on everyone else. It also really annoys me that this happened in Canberra where I live.

Isn't marriage supposed to be about love? 

This photo has recently done the facebook rounds, and I think it is a nice, simple message about marriage:

I have friends and family members who are gay. Why should I be allowed to get married, but they cannot?

From a legal perspective, why shouldn't same sex couples get the same legal rights that come with marriage? Yes, in family law, same sex couples now have certain property rights as de facto couples (in most parts of Australia). But to make a de facto property claim, you need to first establish the existence of the de facto relationship as defined by the legislation. If you are married, this additional step is removed. Marriage also has an impact on a number of other areas including superannuation, wills, estate plans, family provision claims, medical decision making power and insurance. 

Why shouldn't all couples have the choice either to remain in a de facto relationship or make the commitment to marry, and take on the additional rights and responsibilities that comes with marriage? 

Making gay couples unequal under the law only further fosters discrimination. 

In 1958, in the context of the fight for black civil rights in America, Martin Luther King Jr declared, “When any society says that I cannot marry a certain person, that society has cut off a segment of my freedom.”

It has been 4 years since our Prime Minister said "sorry" for the hurt caused by discrimination against indigenous people. An apology would not have been needed if such discrimination was avoided in the first place. Parliament House should be a place for righting past wrongs, it should not be used to facilitate ongoing discrimination. Now is the opportunity to remedy this wrong in our legislation. 

The truth about lawyers...

I don't know who created this meme, but it is great!

And another reminder of why we are aiming toward the dream of a "paperless office"

Separation is like an orange...

Why a separation is like dividing an orange...

(as published in August 2012 B2B Canberra Magazine by Canberra Collaborative Family Lawyers)

It’s about understanding ‘why’ a person wants something not just ‘what they want’ or what they are ‘entitled to’. 

For example:

Two celebrity chefs are in a television cook-off.  Let’s call them Gary and Kylie.  Gary decides to make Orange Sorbet.  Kylie decides to make a tuna steaks with orange zest salsa.  Problem: there’s only one orange.

Gary takes this very seriously and calls his lawyer.  In retaliation Kylie calls her lawyer.  The lawyers write to each other arguing about who is entitled to the orange.  After a lengthy Court battle the Judge orders that the orange be cut in half.  Both end up with 50% but neither of them have enough to make their dish tasty.

If Gary and Kylie sat down to understand their interests, they would realise that Gary really only needs the juice for his recipe, and Kylie needs only the rind. If they had reached an agreement based on their interests, they would have both got what they needed.

Of course, not every case is that easy – but by focusing on understanding interests means your lawyer can tailor solutions that work for both parties, not just solutions that make each person equally unhappy.

This is the aim of Collaborative Law.

Stay tuned for more information on using Collaborative Law to resolve your family law matter and our group Canberra Collaborative Family Lawyers

The High Court on Family Law

Yesterday the High Court in Canberra heard the application in the now famous Hague case involving 4 girls from Italy. 

As expected (at least by most Family Lawyers) the application was dismissed.

I was hoping to make it down to watch the proceedings, but unfortunately I had another Court commitment in the morning, so by the time myself and another lawyer arrived at the High Court, it was only in time to see the gallery being vacated as the proceedings had concluded. 


So now I'll need to wait until the transcript and judgement are published to hear all the arguments that were put forward. In the meantime, I am forced to rely on what the media has reported, which unfortunately in this case, has not always been 100% accurate.

According to ABC News "Justice Virginia Bell told the court a key element of the family law regime is that the best interests of the child may not always accord with what the child wants." (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-07/high-court-custody/4182818) This approach is certainly not surprising to those of us who practice in family law on a daily basis.

Another interesting point to note is that although the Family Court made it very clear it expected the mother to comply with her undertakings to the Court not to encourage or facilitate the children being involved in the media regarding the case (see the June Judgement), shortly after the hearing finished, the twitter account called "Voiceless Kids" (which was apparently set up by or on behalf of the 4 girls) posted links to reports in the media about the High Court dismissal. Their facebook page had similar posts.

There are now claims that children are being "denied a voice" by the Courts, but the fact remains that the children DID have an opportunity in this case to be heard. Rather than attend the Court room and be involved in the "fight", they met with an appropriately trained Family Consultant, without their parents present, and were able to put forward their views and concerns. These WERE presented to the Court and considered before the decision was made (see the original Judgement) 

The Family Law Act,  the Family Court and the Hague Convention may not be perfect, but the system is there for a reason. If we did not follow the principles set out regarding "child abduction", then we could be faced with an influx of parents unilaterally removing children from countries without the other parent's consent.

If as Australians we expect that a child who was raised in Australia and then taken by one parent to another country without consent (to Italy for example) should be returned to Australia, then we need to acknowledge the same will occur when children are brought to our country in similar circumstances. 

about me

This is my first time using a blog, so I thought I'd start slowly by including some info about me and what I do.

Originally from Alice Springs, I moved to the big smoke (Canberra) in 2001 to obtain my degree.

My family include my mother, father, brother, sister, three nieces and a nephew who are located at various locations around Australia, but sadly not in Canberra.

Upon graduation, I joined Farrar Gesini Dunn and found it to be a professional and innovative firm offering intensive training and a work/life balance.

I chose Family Law because it offered an opportunity to work directly with clients rather than simply working with paper. I have found family law extremely rewarding. It gives me a great sense of achievement to feel that I am helping people through a very difficult time in their lives.

I have experience and training in litigation as well as collaborative practice.

I am committed to building trusting relationships with clients and I use my personal and engaged style to develop lasting solutions for clients. I endeavour to achieve out of court settlements where possible, but when necessary litigate to ensure my client’s rights are protected. 

My areas of practice include property settlement for both married and de facto couples, children’s matters and pre nuptial agreements. 

I have found family law to be exciting and challenging and I can’t imagine practicing in any other area.